Moving on and up

1. Part One: War in Eurasia: History, Tragedy, and the Path to Peace
2. Part Two: NATO's Role in Eurasia: Power, Conflict, and Security
3. Part Three: Examining the Precipice of World War III

By Layne Hartsell, Ph.D., and Alexander Krabbe, M.D.

Part Two: NATO's Role in Eurasia

NATO was formed, not by the United Nations as a security measure between states similar to Minsk II, but by the United States as a way to “project power” into Europe as a broader European security alliance in order to maintain a “balance of power” with the Soviet Union and to limit the military might of post-WWII Germany. The Soviet Union responded to the threat of the “security” alliance with its Warsaw Treaty, founded in 1955, six years after the formation of NATO in 1949. If NATO were useful at all, it has been controversial in an escalationist and existential way; particularly since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990. Since then, NATO has increased its armaments and expanded as it projects US power farther into Eurasia as the 13th Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, told President Trump in a meeting in July 2018 broadcast in the mainstream media. President Trump had wanted NATO to remain, however, for Europe to pay its “fair share” all-the-while the Russians had been showing concern and protesting for more than two decades against NATO expansion. Since the end of the Cold War, Russian leaders have wanted guarantees and it is reported widely, sometimes denied, that then secretary general of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev was told that NATO would not expand…“Not one inch to the east [towards Russia].” Whether the exchange with Gorbachev actually occurred or not (or was tacit), security was essential to the agreements at the time. 

The security concern of the Russians is legitimate if we reason generally and follow international law. Early on, Putin said that Russia had intended to join NATO, but membership never manifested into intercontinental politics between Europe and Asia. The missed opportunities are so blatant and systematic that they look like intentional sabotage of peace and integration. Since 1991, NATO, which claims to be a strictly “defensive alliance,” has been involved in a number of attacks including Serbia/Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya – major wars. In April 1999, NATO planes bombed the Serbian state television headquarters which “[destroyed] knocked Radio Television Serbia off the air” killing ten people and with 20 missing “presumably buried in the rubble.” In the real world, not the one of a single morality fantasy and cult of personality, no people will want an aggressive military alliance on its border, particularly one operated by the US straddling the Atlantic to assert itself in Europe and now into Eurasia, nor China spanning the seas to the south or for that matter placing nuclear weapons in Northern Mexico in Nuevo Leon or in Cuba. Currently, the US/NATO has Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania: “The Aegis Ashore system, meant to offer regional missile defense for Europe, has been operational in Deveslu, Romania since 2016” and in Poland by the US Navy where NATO accepted “official transfer” this year “according to a U.S. Naval Forces Europe/U.S. Sixth Fleet spokesperson.” The United States and Europe can and should do better than NATO expansion and aggression. Such a sane position is echoed in international law and recognized by virtually everyone, and yet Russia is considered paranoid or at least incompetent in considering their own needs because Putin is president.

War

In September 2021, a White House memo stated “Supporting Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic Aspirations:  As the United States and Allies reaffirmed in the June 2021 NATO Summit Communique, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.  We also remain committed to assisting Ukraine with ongoing reforms” and see Ukraine as a “NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.” We wonder who comes up with these ideas and terms as if the Russians and world community are destitute of their faculties. Along with “U.S. support, Ukraine is pursuing a reform agenda to transform the country in line with European and Euro-Atlantic principles and practices.” Two months later, the US military base at Mainz-Kastel in Germany was reactivated. The military base being the historic location of the Pershing missile headquarters automatically created nightmares of the Cold War for people in Germany, reminding them of the previous daily threat of thermonuclear war in the last half of the 20th century. We reported on this at the time, The Specter is Back, and suggested that war may be coming soon to Eurasia. Shortly after, in December, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas GahrStoere said during a press conference “I’m afraid we may have war in Europe for Christmas…” Before the Russian invasion, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken had continued to extend the possibility of membership for Ukraine to join NATO. Russia invaded Ukraine on February 22, 2022, in the early morning hours, bombing multiple locations and sending forces as far as Kiev. While an awesome show of might and violence, it did not approach the “Shock and Awe” campaigns of other UN member states, particularly the United States, and Russia has not engaged in full-scale bombing and occupation to this point in time. 

World leaders travel to Kiev regularly, while not too long ago, Baghdad was ignored. This may change as the West is speaking of putting NATO soldiers in Ukraine. The invasion was clearly aggression and industrial-scale death and destruction, complete with suppression of truth in Russia as dissent was quashed. Reports show the suppression and vilification of “peace ready” citizens in all states, “democratic” or authoritarian, however to different degrees. We need not point to the US and Germany in the last few months for fear of embarrassment and hypocrisy at how student protests are being repressed and as free speech is under serious assault. Gratefully, there has been some opposition across the world, including Russia, from general citizens to public figures. In Russia, activist and politician Marina Litvinovich and others have been engaged through protest, petitions, and open letters, along with many coming in from around the world. Russian actress ChulpanKhamatova from “Goodbye Lenin” was forced to leave the country after signing an anti-war petition, and the Feminist Anti-war Resistance Campaign was one of the first in opposition to the invasion. Widespread repression in Russia followed with thousands detained and with an escalating brutality into beatings, and torture.

At the time of the invasion, Putin repeatedly stated what is clearly the position of the Russian people concerning a way out that there be a neutral zone between NATO and Russia, such as the aforementioned Minsk II Agreement. Putin’s position is not very robust, when in fact, NATO should be dismantled and nuclear weapons eliminated along with the implementation of a bioregional system for Eurasia. At the time of the invasion, the concern of the Russians was indeed heard, and it was reasonably speculated early on that there were positive meetings occurring in Istanbul. 

Cynicism, Cowardice, and Stupidity

When wars begin, it is generally thought that the time to act is immediate for a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities so that diplomats can act to create or engage previous agreements. We also mentioned before that there needs to be mass democratic movements to stand behind diplomacy providing a backbone. The crucial moment did indeed arise for the war in Eurasia within two weeks of the Russian invasion. In our second article, we conjectured that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, acting on behalf of NATO, had put down the possibility of an agreement. Last month, in April 2024, it was reported in Foreign Affairs that indeed Johnson played a role in preventing the cessation of hostilities and the possibility for a peaceful arrangement for security in the region. Johnson, seemingly one to have difficulty avoiding foolish expressions, visited Ukraine and after he left came a rejection of the Istanbul meeting from Kiev. It also could be, and we had considered, the possibility that the Russians had not wanted to negotiate but impose. In either case, the negotiations broke down and the war would continue to be pressed with military triumphalism, which is delusional intoxication, as more Ukraine (and Russian) soldiers would be coaxed to their deaths against a much stronger, resilient and experienced Russian military. The Financial Times reported on Trump a few days after Russia invaded: “This is genius,” the former president [Trump] said in response to the now-infamous televised speech in which Putin made clear his intent to move on his neighbor and unleash war in Europe. “How smart is that?” Trump added. “Here’s a guy who’s very savvy.” And, “Tucker Carlson, the Fox News personality with the cable news channel’s biggest following [at the time], has for months used his primetime television show to espouse support for Russia and dismiss Ukraine, regularly singling out specific US senators who had called for pre-emptive sanctions in an effort to deter Russian aggression.” We think encouraging aggression is dangerous. Escalation followed with the sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline where Katherine Sanderson reported in Nature “a 1-kilometre-wide area was bubbling with methane,” a potent greenhouse gas that MIT Climate Portal says we should “count each ton of methane as 80 or 100 tons of CO2.” This release of methane was said to be perhaps the largest release of methane in history at the time (October 2022) and in 2024 iScience reported the destruction as the “World’s largest natural gas leak...estimated at 478,000 tons” or industrial-level destruction. Nature always loses says American ecophilosopher Derrick Jensen.

Recently, with Russian military strength proven and in a position of control, Ukraine has denied passport renewals for its citizens to force Ukraine citizens back into the war-torn country and initiated a pitch for them to “choose their own adventure” against a Russian army, superior in every way militarily. We do not at all discount the heart of courage and resistance of a people defending themselves; we point out the conditions and apparent options for sanity and survival.
    
During the lead-up to the war and after the invasion, we had mentioned the war with some we were in contact with in various parts of society, from professional circles to activists to regular citizens in the West. By and large we were met with, sometimes outright, dismissal, as if the situation were under control, which was sometimes stated directly. “They won’t let it get out of hand or into nuclear confrontation” as we were told by at least one highly educated person. We wonder who people think has the situation “in hand?” Others just did not care; also sometimes said outrightly. In general society, there were no continued large-scale protests, therefore verifying our anecdotal evidence that action was not occurring. Checking the media, social media, and the streets, there was largely an overwhelming focus on superficial morality, such as that of the teenager, and a de facto cult of personality around Putin with the virtue of putting a little Ukraine flag on social media. “Putin is a bad man” and “has to be defeated” was, or is, a typical comment. Others on social media, including some we spoke with, praised Putin “Do you know Putin has a PhD in economics and is a black belt in karate?” and “This is genius…savvy [invasion]” We found this sentiment and lack of action to be pathetic along with the Hollywood cartoon characters that had already made their way to obeisance to Putin. Democracy is under full assault, and what is it about industrial-scale death and nuclear confrontation that is “savvy?” As the Ukraine flag went up across social media, we need not mention the flags of Yemen Sudan or Afghanistan because they were virtually non-existent. Such places were considered, however, in patently racist pronouncements such as from a CBS foreign correspondent in Kiev “But this isn’t a place [Ukraine], with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades…You know, this is a relatively civilized, relatively European – I have to choose those words carefully, too – city [Kiev] where you wouldn’t expect that or hope that it’s going to happen.” At the same time, libertarians with market fetishism and Cryptocurrency Bros Inc., always sure to be on the side of freedom and against the state, made sure to send large amounts of funds to the government in Kiev, one of the most corrupt imaginable, rather than to regular people fleeing for their lives. 

About the Authors

Layne Hartsell, Ph.D. USA (雷恩∙哈特塞尔 - 마이클 레인 핫셀) - 3E: Energy, Economy, Environment – is a research fellow at the Center for Science, Technology, and Society, Department of Philosophy, Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, and Research Professor at the Asia Institute, Tokyo/Berlin. Past affiliations: assistant professor, convergence studies, Sookmyung Women's University and Research Institute for Asian Women - Asia-Pacific Women's Information Network Center in Seoul. Research professor, Sungkyunkwan University and the Advanced Institute of Nanotechnology, Seoul/Suwon. Lecturer at Mahidol University, Siriraj Medical Center, Department of Molecular Biology and Bioinformatics, Bangkok. Researcher at the University of Virginia College of Medicine, Charlottesville.

Alexander Krabbe, M.D., Germany, is a pulmonary specialist and physician for internal medicine and peace activist in Berlin. He was a citizen journalist at OhmyNews International in Seoul from 2004 to 2009 and is currently a research fellow at the Asia Institute in Berlin/Seoul.

Korea IT Times 다른기사 보기